ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Aggrieved of penalty order dated 11.04.2011 and appellate order dated 17.06.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.03.2009, purportedly for his negligence due to which an incident, in which two inmates were killed, took place on 20.03.2009 inside the Ghaghidih Jail, Jamshedpur. A charge-memo dated 03.09.2009 containing 5 charges was served upon the petitioner to which he submitted his reply on 15.12.2009. Enquiry report dated 19.06.2010 was submitted, in which the enquiry officer found charge Nos. 1, 4 and 5 not proved, however, charge nos. 2 and 3 which are in relation to recovery of several incriminating articles from the prisoners' ward were found partly proved. The petitioner was issued second show-cause notice on 03.08.2010 in response to which he submitted his reply on 18.01.2011, pleading for his exoneration from charges. By penalty order dated 11.04.2011, the petitioner was inflicted punishment of demotion to the post of Assistant Jailor and debarment from promotion in future. The petitioner was deprived of full salary and other allowances except, the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on 17.06.2013 and in the mean-time he superannuated from service on 30.04.2011. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that once the main charge, of dereliction of duty due to which inmates Paramjeet Singh and Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam died, failed, in view of the finding on insufficient staff and absence of facility for surveillance inside the jail recorded by the enquiry officer, the penalty order dated 11.04.2011 becomes unsustainable in law. Challenging the appellate order dated 17.06.2013 it is contended that it is a statutory appeal under Rule 192 of the Jail Manual and, therefore, the least what the appellate authority should have done was to consider the stand of the petitioner-appellant and return a finding on the same, which the appellate authority has failed to do so. On these grounds, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders impugned in the present proceeding are liable to be quashed. 4. As against the above, the learned State counsel submits that the jailor being the chief executive officer under Rule 222 of Bihar Jail Manual (as adopted by the State of Jharkhand) is responsible for maintaining security and sanctity inside the jail. 4. As against the above, the learned State counsel submits that the jailor being the chief executive officer under Rule 222 of Bihar Jail Manual (as adopted by the State of Jharkhand) is responsible for maintaining security and sanctity inside the jail. The occurrence which took place on 20.03.2009 is a proof in itself of the fact that the petitioner failed in his duty to maintain law and order and to prevent illegal smuggling of contraband articles inside the jail. It is contended that under Rule 464 of Bihar Jail Manual there are restrictions for carrying several articles by the prisoners who are admitted inside the jail, however, the petitioner failed to ensure compliance of Rule 464 of the Jail Manual. 5. Charges which have been found partly proved against the petitioner are : (i) recovery of incriminating articles from prisoners' wards proves that the petitioner has failed to ensure compliance of Rule 464, and (ii) he failed to ensure periodic checking of the prisoners' ward. 6. The enquiring officer in its report dated 19.06.2010 not only makes several recommendations, inter-alia, filling-up of vacant posts, deployment of armed forces over Central Watch Tower, surprise inspection of the jail, installation of Jammer and C.C. T.V, the report records that regular inspection of the jail premises which has been constructed over 22 acres land is not physically possible. Insofar as charge No. 3 which relates to a direction by the Jail Superintendent issued on 05.03.2009 is concerned, the petitioner has taken a stand that on the said date inspection of the jail has taken place, however, no incriminating article was recovered from the wards of the prisoners. This fact has not been challenged by the department. Inspection of the wards was carried out is a fact, and how frequently it should be carried is not prescribed under the rules. The penalty order dated 11.04.2011 merely narrates the stand of the department and referring to Rule 222 and Rule 464 of Jail Manual, the petitioner has been held responsible for smuggling of incriminating articles inside the jail. Rule 222 and Rule 464 of Bihar Jail Manual read as under: "222. The jailor is the chief executive officer of the jail and is under the immediate directions of the Superintendent, whose orders he is bound to obey. Rule 222 and Rule 464 of Bihar Jail Manual read as under: "222. The jailor is the chief executive officer of the jail and is under the immediate directions of the Superintendent, whose orders he is bound to obey. He shall be responsible for the strict carrying out of all the rules in this Manual relating to the management of the jail and prisons. He should therefore make himself thoroughly acquainted with the rules and with the circulars issued by the Inspector-General." "464. On admission in to a jail all prisoners shall be throughly searched. From prisoners sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, every article, whether clothing, money, jewelery, documents or anything else, shall be taken (but if prisoners are received late or after lockup, their clothing shall be left with them until any property other than clothes shall be taken. From under-trial prisoners the same article shall be taken as from simple imprisonment prisoners, except bedding which they may retain. From civil prisoners only dangerous weapons, articles likely to facilitate escape, spirits, drug and immoral books shall be taken. The caste threads of bralunins or other thread-wearing castes shall in no case be removed. Civil prisoners shall not be searched in the presence of any other prisoners and prisoners of the European class shall be searched where possible only by and in the presence of Europeans. The search of female prisoners shall be made by the matron or female warden and only in the presence of females. All property taken from prisoners shall be dealt with as ordered in Chapter X. The search must be thoroughly and carefully done as prisoners frequently conceal articles in their hair and beards and in other parts of their persons. (Corresponding Rules 913, 651, 1082, 260, 230.)" 7. A bare reading of Rule 222 of Jail Manual would indicate that the jailor is under the immediate directions of the Superintendent of Jail, whose order he is bound to obey. Personal search of the visitors and the inmates/prisoners is not the responsibility of the jailor, though he is responsible for issuing directions for strict compliance of the rules of Jail Manual. Rule 464 provides the articles which are permitted to be taken by the inmates/prisoners at the time of their admission inside the jail. Personal search of the visitors and the inmates/prisoners is not the responsibility of the jailor, though he is responsible for issuing directions for strict compliance of the rules of Jail Manual. Rule 464 provides the articles which are permitted to be taken by the inmates/prisoners at the time of their admission inside the jail. The incriminating articles which were recovered after the incident on 20.03.2009 were smuggled inside the jail at the time of admission of the prisoners or those were smuggled subsequently, has not been ascertained. Insofar as dereliction of duty by the petitioner is concerned, the witnesses examined were not subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner is that the statement of those witnesses were never supplied to him and while so, it cannot be presumed in law that they all had made statements against him. The disciplinary authority has evidently not taken note of the aforesaid facts. 8. Apparently, the decision-making process was faulty. The procedure adopted by the department during the enquiry, in examining the witnesses behind the back of the petitioner, was illegal. In these facts, the penalty order dated 11.04.2011 by which the petitioner has been found guilty in reference to Rule 222 and Rule 464 of the Jail Manual, is unsustainable and accordingly, it is quashed. Consequently, the appellate order dated 17.06.2013 being a cryptic order, of barely two sentences, is also quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. Needless to record that consequential service benefits including, revision in pension, as admissible in law, shall be granted to the petitioner. 9. The writ petition stands allowed, in the above terms.